Lincoln (2012)

Hey hey, everybody! I hope you enjoyed your week; now are you ready to get your weekly fix of pop? Today’s fix:

Neither the 16th president of the United States nor Steven Spielberg needs any introduction from me, so let’s jump right in. Actually, before I say that, someone make sure that Mr. Spielberg drinks from the Holy Grail; this man needs to continue making movies until long after I’m gone. I haven’t seen a lot of his movies, probably fewer than what you’d call a handful, but I’ve enjoyed every one of those that I have. Lincoln is no exception. It’s set in 1865, after President Lincoln’s re-election, and is primarily about the end of the Civil War and the signing of the 13th Amendment – the federal ban on slavery – into law. And now, a few observations.

Unfortunately, a very insightful New York Times review beat me to the punch in saying so, but one of the great qualities of Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is that it doesn’t bore us with flawless, unfeeling marble effigies meant to look like the historical figures they portray. I’ve been long tired of biopics, period pieces, and even history documentaries depicting their chosen subject in an unqualified positive light, making them larger than life; all it does it make them not human. Daniel Day Lewis‘s Abraham Lincoln is very human, very flawed, and frankly kinda weird at times. Kinda like that old HBO series about John Addams (what was it called again?), that I felt was really honest and unafraid of showing the dirty or perhaps embarrassing side of America’s Founding Fathers. I really liked Lincoln’s portrayal of what seemed to be real history in motion, not just in the making. Seriously, I hope there’s historical truth to this depiction of the life and times, because it was really refreshing.

And while we’re on the subject, if it is true to history, then Spielberg has evoked 19th century American life in a believable way, in both its highs and lows, “hyper-realistically,” I would say. Not just grit and grime and not just sunshine and pleasantries, but what I feel is an attempt at an honest portrayal of a period in history, whatever “honest” might mean. One aspect I felt was captured especially well was the pace of life in the early Industrial Age. Life was slow, and that above all things showed in the pacing of the movie itself. People had to walk everywhere if they didn’t have a coach, messages were slow-going from place to place, it was a totally different time and a totally different pacing to life as a whole. I think the camera was deliberately made to hold on to certain scenes and shots a little longer, in order to make the movie feel slower, and as a result, effect the impression of a slower world. It’s not something I think most people think about, whether watching or creating period and costume dramas, or even in general. That was a genuinely cool thought that zapped through my mind while watching.

Moreover, I think the above points really lent themselves to a much more important point the movie as a whole seemed to be making: history doesn’t just happen. One of Lincoln’s major points, I felt, was that the end of slavery before the Civil War was something that had to be made to happen; it wasn’t a pre-determined end and definitely not inevitable. History is an undefined, unordained process that could’ve gone a totally different way. It becomes history after it happens, and they didn’t know how it would turn out then, just as we don’t know now what will be written about us in the history books.

On another note, I think Mr. Spielberg was pretty strategic in his timing the release of Lincoln mere weeks after a more contemporary American presidential election. I can only guess as to what his true intentions might have been, but I have an inkling based on some of Honest Abe’s last lines (well not quite last; it was in the last five or ten minutes of the movie). Leaving that aside, I felt like the true actors in American politics according to this film, and thus the true heroes, were not its presidents but its legislature and ultimately its people. About 75% of the film was about President Lincoln trying to create change by taking action within the House of Representatives, not the White House. Whatever your takeaway of this as a true and accurate representation, I thought at least that that was what the movie was trying to impress upon the viewer. And by the way, I was particularly fond of Tommy Lee Jones‘s performance as a Thaddeus Stevens, one of a few really interesting supporting characters that I felt stole the show, more so than the guy the flick’s named after.

So the scenery was great, the clothing was great, the acting was great, what else? The writing and directing was damn good, but what else would you expect? The film itself opened with a really gruesome battle in sort of the same vein as the Invasion of Normandy opener in Saving Private Ryan, which transitioned seamlessly into the report of a Union soldier, one of a few nice stylistic moments. And the scene of the actual roll call on the 13th Amendment vote? Well, that’s one of those moments when you know it’s a Spielberg film. I give Lincoln a 10 out of 10. It’s a very moving and very interesting film. Everyone should go see it, no matter what their taste in movies, no matter what their politics…basically, no matter what. This is a must-see film. Well, that’ll do it for now. I’ve already written ahead of this week, so I’m ready to see you all again next week. See you then!